The witnesses did not mention the wounds to the accused persons, but they have assigned the accused to hand over the accused to the accused, according to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The statements were inconsistent with the facts. The incident and some facts were suppressed. If the accused had Kalashnikov to kill the deceased, the accused would not have to wait till the witnesses arrived, the statements of Lilakara's witnesses were unbelievable. Because the FIR was filed before the FIR of the present case, despite the facts stated by the complainant, there was no pre-planning or planning for the commission of the murder, Article 34, PPC. Gone, in the circumstances it was hardly possible. Applicable to the case, the facts further stated that the accused, despite Kalashnikov, was not used by them, and neither suddenly nor momentarily, the victim removed the knife and started injuring the accused, with no joint intention. was not. Found by the accused, he cannot be held responsible for the prosecution of the co-accused, in which case, the victim was not liable to be convicted of the murder of the offender and the accused in this case was punished. The sentence was absolutely wrong and illegal, and the accused was acquitted. While it was proven that during the fighting, circumstances forced the co-accused to kill the victim
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011
